tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 25 10:28:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
>Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 09:12:29 -0800 (PST)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
Hee... these are getting LONG for something titled "Short and Easy"!
>On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:34:03 -0800 (PST) James Coupe
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Meanwhile, if she is mad at me and I could visit her again, but
>the experience would simply be unpleasant and as much as I'd
>like to see her again, I do not wish to cause her unpleasantry,
>"I won't visit her again," becomes {be'vetlh vISuchqa'be'.} I
>have the ability, and I am not refusing to visit her again. I am
>merely evaluating that such a visit will not occur.
Actually, I'd use -Qo' here as well. I *could* visit her, but I am
consciously refusing to exercise that ability. I am refusing my own
internal orders, since part of me would like to see her (much as you,
charghwI', correctly pointed out in the discussion with Qov). If I
envision that she will probably never invite me again, I'd use -be'. I'm
just predicting what will happen, my own intent notwithstanding. -Qo' is a
failure-to-happen brought about consciously.
>> >You can add suffixes to pronouns, but you cannot do so
>> >mindlessly. Pronouns are not quite nouns. They function as
>> >nouns, except when they are functioning as verbs and some noun
>> >suffixes really don't work on pronouns. Type 4 noun suffixes
>> >singularly do not work with pronouns. I mean, how would you
>> >translate {jIHDaj} or {SoHvam}? It just doesn't work.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, obviously. I just wanted to know whether it was at all possible.
>> Actually, looking at jIHDaj, there's a song in Britain by (I think) "M
>> People" a few years back called "You've got to search for the hero
>> inside yourself". If I was searching for the hero inside myself, I
>> reckon I could use that since as the klingon would go
>>
>> inside-myself hero I-search
>> jIHDaj Sub vISucH
>
>Yuck. Nope. This does not nearly work. Just look into the
>neuralizer and -FLASH- You never saw this happen. Do not look
>back.
Main problems here are a misreading of -Daj as -Daq, and use of "Such"
instead of "nej." "jIHDaq" is perfectly reasonable and understandable and
maybe even canonical (I know SoHDaq is). "*jIHDaj", however, makes next to
no sense. "Her I"? "Her me"? Maybe in a truly funky poem. Maybe.
"Searching inside myself" is not necssarily the best of examples either;
uses of "jIHDaq" are probably easier to find... jIHDaq cha' taghDu'
lutu'lu'....
~mark